If your answer is yes to either of those questions, why then does St. Paul call St. Philemon a fellow bondservant and laboror in the gospel???

If he is committing this abominable act, why does St. Paul not excommunicate him like he would an abortionist, murderer, adulterer, or practicing homosexsual???

Well, it seems to me that the answer to the questions I quote (if not those "for the record") was already in the message to which you replied. Expressing outrage is less desirable than effecting change.

Also, you're still trying to put words in my mouth. Your original question was "why did Paul say this?" and that question, I answered. I did not say that Paul thought of slavery as "an abominable act". What I'm questioning is your attempt to turn a personal letter of persuasion into a grand moral teaching-- at least, in the direction that you are trying to do so.

Well, it seems to me that the answer to the questions I quote (if not those "for the record") was already in the message to which you replied. Expressing outrage is less desirable than effecting change.

Keble, I guess we'll have agree to disagree on that point. The truth of the matter is that if the South would have stayed in the Union they would have been able to keep their slaves. Frank Conner, in 'The South Under Siege 1830-2000' wrote: "President Abraham Lincoln single-handedly started the War of Northern Aggression; he retained full control over that war. He waged it to preserve his own political future, by conquering the Southern states and putting them back under the economic control of the Northern capitalists. He sold this war to the Northern public as a war to 'preserve the Union' (maintain the North's economic control over the South). And that's why the North fought the war." Did the South have a right to be sick of having to pay for the lion's share of the federal government? You bet she did. Did she have a right to secede, state by state, for that reason and for theological reasons? She did. Did Lincoln have the right to use federal force to drag her kicking and screaming back into the Union? He did not, and therein lies the crux of the matter. Lincoln did what he had no right to do--and the feds have been doing that and getting away with it ever since--and that's where we are today. Don't like the way the country is going? Blame "Honest Abe." He set the present trend.

Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity

There's no "truth of the matter" here.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š This is an opinion, not a fact.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š

It is more than opinion, Lincoln pushed a proposed amendment through both the House and Senate early in '61 (without representation from many southern states) that would insure that slavery could never be abolished, and that no Constitutional Amendment could ever be proposed to abolish slavery in the Future, it would have constituted the only unamendable element of the Constitution. Having been able to pass this amendment in the House and Senate without most southern states present, a 3/4th majority of all the states, including the Southern States, would have been trivial; but there was a catch, the Southern States would have to re-enter the Union, and be subject to the excessive tariffs imposed to protect the Yankee Capitalists; the Southern states prefered to enact the same 'inalienable rights' that the Colonies had enacted 80 years earlier. Plus, there was another obstical to the abolishing of slavery, it would have opened the north to massive immigration of blacks from the South...and we should all know Lincoln's opinion on that.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

There's no "truth of the matter" here. This is an opinion, not a fact.

Then why were some slave states part of the Union during the Civil War? Nobody even brought up the issue of slavery until well into the war. Lincoln never said that the war had to be fought to free the slaves. The only claim he ever made was that he believed the Union had to remain as a whole. Nobody can show any evidence where northern politicans said they were going to fight the south over the issue of slavery. The claim was always to perserve the union.

Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity

Then why were some slave states part of the Union during the Civil War? Nobody even brought up the issue of slavery until well into the war. Lincoln never said that the war had to be fought to free the slaves. The only claim he ever made was that he believed the Union had to remain as a whole. Nobody can show any evidence where northern politicans said they were going to fight the south over the issue of slavery. The claim was always to perserve the union.

Nacho, how can a hypothetical situation be the "truth?" It can't, by definition, be the "truth."

Nacho, how can a hypothetical situation be the "truth?"ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š It can't, by definition, be the "truth."ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š

It's an opinion, not the "truth of the matter."ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š

'If China nukes us, we will retaliate.'

This is also a hypothetical statement, but more than merely an 'opinion.' It is both the Most Probable and Realistic Conclusion for the given Situation, on account of the evidence at hand. Accordingly, the Scenarios that Nacho and myself have put forward, though hypothetical, are more than mere 'opinion,' they are the Most Probably and Realistic Conclusions that can be drawn about the given situation from the facts available to us.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

You're wrong on this one. if the secessionist states had returned to the Union, they could have kept their slaves. This is what the Emancipation Proclamation was intended to do. First, it was intended to tell the states who had seceded that if they returned, they could keep their slaves. This is why the Proclamation stated that those slaves in states currently in rebellion against the United States would be freed. As has been noted, many of the union states held slaves (20%, to be exact, 5 of the union states, not counting Washington DC which also allowed slavery0. The Emancipation Proclamation purposely did not free slaves held by these states. So by declaring the slaves of the secessionist states free, Lincoln hoped to lure them back into the Union. If they laid down their weapons, they could keep their slaves. If they continued in "rebellion", they would lose them. Lincoln was not the "great liberator" he has been portrayed to be. If he wanted ot free the slaves, why didn't he free them in the union states as well?

The second purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation was geopolitical. By making the war about slavery, something it had not been about for the previous 2 years of the war, he insured that England and France would not openly support the South.

It was a brilliant political move, but that's what it was, i.e. political. Limcoln was not concerned with black civil rights. He was concerned with keeping the union intact. period. As for why this was important, I will bow to those with more knowledge on this side of things than I.

Further support of Nacho's claim is the fact that the Emanicpation Proclamation started riots in New York. Several black people were killed. The reason for the riots? As the protestors proclaimed, they didn't want to fight to free black people.

The Civil War wasn't about slavery. It was about the rights of the States to determine their own destiny. The South wasn't fighting to keep them, and the North wasn't fighting to take them away.

This is also a hypothetical statement, but more than merely an 'opinion.' It is both the Most Probable and Realistic Conclusion for the given Situation, on account of the evidence at hand. Accordingly, the Scenarios that Nacho and myself have put forward, though hypothetical, are more than mere 'opinion,' they are the Most Probably and Realistic Conclusions that can be drawn about the given situation from the facts available to us.

Your example is different. It *could* happen and therefore become truth. Nacho's statement cannot be be truth because it can never happen.

Your example is different.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š It *could* happen and therefore become truth.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Nacho's statement cannot be be truth because it can never happen.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š

From what I know of Quantum Mechanics, it can, and has, occured. From what I know of General Relativity, it could still occur within our Quantum Reality. But those are different issues entirely.

Let's try th is one. "If Russia had nuked us during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, we would have retaliated.' There is a hypothetical situation in the past, but a statement which has more force than 'mere' opinion...perhaps it's not a 'fact,' but for that matter, neither is the existance of gravity (ok, I'm getting off on that tangent again ).

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

First, counter-factuals/hypotheticals can be either true or false. You're confusing factuality with truth. They aren't the same. It can never be true that something that didn't happen did, in fact, happen. However, it can be true that if "x" had occurred, "y" would have followed. This is the form the original statement was in. Take for example the counter-factual statement, "If I had been born female, I would look different than I do now." This is obviously true and it is obviously hypothetical. To be perfectly precise, however, these are not hypothetical but rather counter-factual. They state something that would have been the case had the facts been other than they were. Thus, they are statements regarding something that did not, in fact, happen. Grammatically, they're called conditions. A hypothetical statement would involve something on the order of, "Suppose that I were a dragon..." But even these fall under truth conditions. It is either true or false that if I were a dragon..."x". They fall under the same truth conditions as any other statements. The only question is whether they are true or not. Is it, in fact, true that if the South had laid down its weapons and ceased its rebellion, it would have preserved slavery? This can quite obviously be either a true or a false statement. The only dispute should be as to which truth condition it falls under, which can be difficult to determine since it did not, in fact, happen. Therefore, we have to draw conclusions from other facts that are given. One might argue that the truth of a counter-factual statement can never be known for certain, but this is not the same as saying it is not true. There are many obvious examples of counter-factuals (or hypothetical statements, if you prefer) being either true or false. If I were a woman, I would not look the same as I do now. That is true. The statement, "If I had a one-inch finger growing out of my forehead, I could scratch my back with it" is false. If the Space Shuttle had launched yesterday, it would not be sitting on the launchpad now. This is true. If I were a unicorn, I would not have a horn on my forehead. This is false. The list is endless.

Wow, cinizec, you know, that's a very persuasive argument. I never thought of it like that. You must be right.

Give me a break. Deal with the issue and stop throwing mud. Both the Church and Scripture have a long history of at the very least condoning slavery. So please, if you want to make a point, do so, but stop throwing around insults. As it stands, your most persuasive argument is, "It's self-evident". To which, I reply, "No it's not." Now if you can't see why it's not self-evident, then fine. But stop insulting those of us who can.

Take for example the counter-factual statement, "If I had been born female, I would look different than I do now." This is obviously true and it is obviously hypothetical.

And obviously simplistic. This is, after all, a simple syllogism based upon the taxonomy of the sexes in Homo sapiens. For better or worse, the human will is not as amenable to description through such simple means. You said"if the secessionist states had returned to the Union, they could have kept their slaves," but that does not follow as a simple syllogism from the words of the Emancipation Proclamation.

Now try reading the reasons instead of counting particular words and taking them out of context. The issue with slavery and secession wasn’t that the North was going to take away the South’s slaves. The issue was expansion. And it wasn’t that the North was opposed to slavery and the South was for it (after all, where did the slave traders reside? New England.). The issue was representation in the Congress and expansion. The North was trying to limit the expansion of slavery into new territories. Not because it was so righteous in its opposition to slavery, but because of the political ramifications as far as representation in Congress went if the new territories became slave states. And the South had its eyes on expanding into Mexico and wanted to take their slaves with them. The North was threatening to prohibit this, thus weakening the South in the legislature.

Whenever your intellectual arguments rests on the number of times a word is mentioned as opposed to the ideas themselves and the context in which those ideas are formed, you’re going to have a very weak argument.

As for my “simplistic” example. Of course it was simplistic. It was supposed to be, because it was supposed to be obvious. The argument was that a statement can’t be classified as true if it is hypothetical (or, in this case, counter-factual). I was demonstrating that it can, using an example that everyone could agree on.

Now try reading the reasons instead of counting particular words and taking them out of context. The issue with slavery and secession wasn’t that the North was going to take away the South’s slaves.

Did you read the statements?

quote from Nacho: "Nothing could be further from the truth seeing that slavery never came up as in issue until towards the end of the war."

quote from you: "The North was never, not at any moment, fighting to free slaves, so just how is it you think the South was fighting to “continue slavery”?"

From the Mississippi statement:

Quote

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

I can believe you, or I can believe a primary source. Guess which I'm going to believe?